Haven't been keeping up with the thread, but I wanted to chime in on Ellis' attitude.

Everyone knew about how he complained about drafting Curry. The whole 'this small back court isn't going to work'. I know they reconciled the relationship and tried to make things work on the court, but I think some things aren't reconcilable. I'm not saying they didn't get a long, but I definitely think it put a damper on how close they could've gone. On and off the court.

When Ellis was with us, I noticed lots of little things that signified immaturity and lack of effort. There were plenty of times where I saw Ellis waiting for the ball to swing back to him and pouted in a 'omg' manner if it didn't get back to him. You don't see that happening with this squad. You didn't see when Klay fired off three 3 pointers in one possession.

Another thing that always bothered me was that Ellis rarely gave dap to the free throw shooter. This is not a big deal, and some may think it's stupid for even mentioning it, but I think it does say something about how much invested you are in your teammates. It's a simple gesture, but it lets me know whether or not if you're encouraging towards your fellow teammate, and by this standard, Monta didn't care.

The only camaraderie I ever witnessed from Ellis was with veterans. He respected Baron Davis, Matt Barnes, Stephen Jackson, Corey Maggette, and the older cats. But when he got to the throne, I definitely think, for the most part, that he alienated his teammates.

Compared to how Steph and Thompson is playing defense now, I never saw Ellis put in the same effort staying in from of everyone. This is where things starts to get dicey because some of you (or a lot of you) may disagree with me when I say that Thompson and Curry is doing a great job staying in front of their man. Curry is doing an exceptional job fighter over screens. Thompson gets posted up from time to time, but in terms of effort, it's there.

The more I see this team play, the more I realize how selfish Ellis was. I'm saying this unbiasly too, because I was a big Ellis fan. I loved it when he hit those game winners against Sac and Indiana. I loved it when I saw him hit for 30, but the more I watch our current squad, the more I realize all those things that Ellis did for us didn't matter.

I don't know, I didn't get that feeling that he wasn't supportive of his teammates. I guess we just felt it differently. He had Biedrins as a starting center, who was scared to shoot, because he was even more scared to stand at the FT line. And I have a feeling that Ellis was trying to help him out, giving him the balls, feeding him...but you can't shoot the ball for the other guy as well. You say he wasn't being supportive when his teammate was shooting FTs, might be, can't remember now (though he was usually near the sideline, getting instructions from our coach), but on the other hand, I never saw him diss someone, or be negative when somebody screwed something up.

The ball was moving fast, we just had a go to guy, it's not an anomaly, really. Look at Thunder, they play team ball, but when it counts, you know where the ball is going to be.

I just think, that it wasn't offense that was the problem, cause, literally, our offense was actually better while Monta was here. It was defense...and it was not because of Ellis, but because we lacked a center, and there was nobody to help inside. Hell, I could have scored against teams like that. Now, we have guys to clog the paint. And our bench is much better...then, we had no one but Rush, pretty much.

And I'm also watching Bucks, mostly because of Monta. I always liked the guy, I just love players who give it their all, who play with heart. I just don't see that in Klay, he is like a machine, always the same face. Though, I like Klay as well, I'm just more of a fan of guys who are into it, both physically, but emotionally as well. That emotion part will sometimes push you to the distance you wouldn't have reached otherwise, by solely relying on your physicality.

I feel like we didn't watch the same games lol. I see more competitive fire in Klay than I ever saw in Ellis. Don't get me wrong -- Ellis is very competitive....to get his scoring numbers. But to win? I really think he'd rather score 30 and lose than score 15 and win. I can tell you this -- if I ever had Ellis on my team, I wouldn't be happy about it. He's the kind of guy you hate playing with --- a ballhog who thinks he's better than he is, poor basketball IQ, and plays no D / no effort. Really no surprise that the GSW team chemistry is way better now (we saw this on DAY 1 vs the Kings on the day he was traded).....and no surprise that when the Bucks forums took a poll, more than 75% are in favor of trading him. Also he's only shooting 40% on the season, while taking 17.5 FGA's (takes more shots than Kevin Durant).

I still don't get the argument, we got something value able for Monta. That is the end of argument. No one disagrees about the trade, am sure the board is 100% satisfied we got Bogut. I can understand if the argument was hey Monta is blah blah and we got a stone for him or some irrelevant player, then I would say, hey people saying Monta sucks are right we got this scrub for him so there must be truth that he sucks, blah blah but we did not we got a Center when healthy is a top tier, or 2nd tier Center. Again no one is mad Monta got traded, he got traded for value so that proves his value, no opinions needed. The transaction went through, that is fact, end of story. Personal opinions don't matter when a trade goes because two teams ended up making the decisions, regardless what a fan thinks you only now look at the pieces, and I am thrilled we got Bogut, and when Monta left, we tanked and ended up the 7th pick Barnes, and I am happy, very, very happy with the outcome.

rockyBeli wrote:I feel like we didn't watch the same games lol. I see more competitive fire in Klay than I ever saw in Ellis. Don't get me wrong -- Ellis is very competitive....to get his scoring numbers. But to win? I really think he'd rather score 30 and lose than score 15 and win. I can tell you this -- if I ever had Ellis on my team, I wouldn't be happy about it. He's the kind of guy you hate playing with --- a ballhog who thinks he's better than he is, poor basketball IQ, and plays no D / no effort. Really no surprise that the GSW team chemistry is way better now (we saw this on DAY 1 vs the Kings on the day he was traded).....and no surprise that when the Bucks forums took a poll, more than 75% are in favor of trading him. Also he's only shooting 40% on the season, while taking 17.5 FGA's (takes more shots than Kevin Durant).

But he is no longer on the team, and we got Bogut for him. You describing him as a ball hog, plays no defense, you trying to make opinions as facts. You under value Monta, which is fine, but the facts are simple he was an asset to the team, and he brought back an asset in Barnes and Bogut.

You just need to acknowledge the fact we flipped Monta the ball hog, the poor bball IQ, etc for Barnes and Bogut, once you figure that out then you might see his value. Again I am not talking about opinions of his game, I am talking solely about VALUE. Once you admit that and figure the team got value from Monta, you might just get over it.

rockyBeli wrote:I feel like we didn't watch the same games lol. I see more competitive fire in Klay than I ever saw in Ellis. Don't get me wrong -- Ellis is very competitive....to get his scoring numbers. But to win? I really think he'd rather score 30 and lose than score 15 and win. I can tell you this -- if I ever had Ellis on my team, I wouldn't be happy about it. He's the kind of guy you hate playing with --- a ballhog who thinks he's better than he is, poor basketball IQ, and plays no D / no effort. Really no surprise that the GSW team chemistry is way better now (we saw this on DAY 1 vs the Kings on the day he was traded).....and no surprise that when the Bucks forums took a poll, more than 75% are in favor of trading him. Also he's only shooting 40% on the season, while taking 17.5 FGA's (takes more shots than Kevin Durant).

But he is no longer on the team, and we got Bogut for him. You describing him as a ball hog, plays no defense, you trying to make opinions as facts. You under value Monta, which is fine, but the facts are simple he was an asset to the team, and he brought back an asset in Barnes and Bogut.

You just need to acknowledge the fact we flipped Monta the ball hog, the poor bball IQ, etc for Barnes and Bogut, once you figure that out then you might see his value. Again I am not talking about opinions of his game, I am talking solely about VALUE. Once you admit that and figure the team got value from Monta, you might just get over it.

Ball hog / no defense is not really just my opinion, it's fact to anyone watching the games or reading a stat. Nah I agree with you about he had some value. Scorers do. Just like Corey Maggette and Ben Gordon have value for the right teams (and also players who were able to sucker teams into $10mil+ /yr deals). True value if you want to win? Not so sure they have that... but perceived value around the league - or at least to the Bucks, I guess so cuz they made the trade. We would've never got a healthy Bogut in that trade, but yes I was / am ecstatic as hell we were able to not only trade him, but to trade him in a good deal. It's a testament to the new FO and the Bucks bad one. On to better GSW days in the post-Monta and post-Cohan era.

Like I said in my one of my previous post I am pretty sure everyone is 100% glad we pulled the trade, thats no surprise there some people just don't want to expect the FACT that Monta had the value to pull Bogut. But that is FACT is this value is value, it might be hard to stomach

Warriors at the trade were 18-21, ended the season at 23-43. We ended up 5-22 after the trade, I would say there was a major correlation between the trade and that abysmal record.

And as we all knew we needed that 7th pick or Utah would get our pick. Again like I said looking at the picture through the eye of the front office, it was brilliant timing them.

rockyBeli wrote:I feel like we didn't watch the same games lol. I see more competitive fire in Klay than I ever saw in Ellis. Don't get me wrong -- Ellis is very competitive....to get his scoring numbers. But to win? I really think he'd rather score 30 and lose than score 15 and win. I can tell you this -- if I ever had Ellis on my team, I wouldn't be happy about it. He's the kind of guy you hate playing with --- a ballhog who thinks he's better than he is, poor basketball IQ, and plays no D / no effort. Really no surprise that the GSW team chemistry is way better now (we saw this on DAY 1 vs the Kings on the day he was traded).....and no surprise that when the Bucks forums took a poll, more than 75% are in favor of trading him. Also he's only shooting 40% on the season, while taking 17.5 FGA's (takes more shots than Kevin Durant).

But he is no longer on the team, and we got Bogut for him. You describing him as a ball hog, plays no defense, you trying to make opinions as facts. You under value Monta, which is fine, but the facts are simple he was an asset to the team, and he brought back an asset in Barnes and Bogut.

You just need to acknowledge the fact we flipped Monta the ball hog, the poor bball IQ, etc for Barnes and Bogut, once you figure that out then you might see his value. Again I am not talking about opinions of his game, I am talking solely about VALUE. Once you admit that and figure the team got value from Monta, you might just get over it.

Ball hog / no defense is not really just my opinion, it's fact to anyone watching the games or reading a stat. Nah I agree with you about he had some value. Scorers do. Just like Corey Maggette and Ben Gordon have value for the right teams (and also players who were able to sucker teams into $10mil+ /yr deals). True value if you want to win? Not so sure they have that... but perceived value around the league - or at least to the Bucks, I guess so cuz they made the trade. We would've never got a healthy Bogut in that trade, but yes I was / am ecstatic as hell we were able to not only trade him, but to trade him in a good deal. It's a testament to the new FO and the Bucks bad one. On to better GSW days in the post-Monta and post-Cohan era.

Corey Maggette and Ben Gordon, have NO-VALUE what so ever in the league, NONE what so ever, but that the same type of thought pattern that makes no sense to me. You want to categorize Monta in that same category but your obviously wrong, you would get no one for the likes of Maggette and Ben Gordon.

But post Cohan era is a change of culture and an actual effort to mesh the proper players, and also the ability to spend money. The Cohan era had to do with the bad records, and a horrible organizational culture that was way more worse than any particular player. Basketball is a team game, if the starting 5, and the bench are not up to par with the skill of the rest of the league then you will have the Cohan era which is way worst than any player can effect.

warriorsstepup wrote:Corey Maggette and Ben Gordon, have NO-VALUE what so ever in the league, NONE what so ever, but that the same type of thought pattern that makes no sense to me. You want to categorize Monta in that same category but your obviously wrong, you would get no one for the likes of Maggette and Ben Gordon.

But post Cohan era is a change of culture and an actual effort to mesh the proper players, and also the ability to spend money. The Cohan era had to do with the bad records, and a horrible organizational culture that was way more worse than any particular player. Basketball is a team game, if the starting 5, and the bench are not up to par with the skill of the rest of the league then you will have the Cohan era which is way worst than any player can effect.

No one is saying that they have value now. Rocky said they [i]had[i] value and the reason why teams gave them 10/mil contracts is because they could score. Same thing with Ellis. He has value because he can score.

I went back to read the exchange you two had to try and add my 2 cents, but damn it's tough. It's like you're arguing a position that no one is challenging. Lol. So yeah, I'll just sit this one out.

I think Monta is a good player. Now his effort and defense was call into question, because he had to guard other big 2 guards that wears him out which he wasn't good at, he puts lots of effort in his offensive abilities, and playing heavy mins. There wasn't any help def or adequate shot blocker or someone to take a charge once he gets beat. He is a better efficient player coming off the bench and playing against bench players. If you put Monta in the starting lineup he should play the Point , have a good wing defender, and shot blocker. His role is best fit to be a supporting player on the right team and coaching staff. He can take pressure off the number one player on a winning team from time to time during the 82 game season. In my opinion Monta never got the front office to get the necessary depth for the team, the coaching staff wasn't a good mix with the team, and there were too many obstacle for the team to function well enough.

The front office thinks Curry is better and is able to play in a team concept and they chose Curry and surrounded him with good depth. There lots of Warriors fans think Curry is much better player than Ellis, because Curry on a winning team right now and Ellis is on a losing team. Both aren't good defenders, but I like Curry ability to shoot better than Ellis and Ellis is better driver to the basketball and create contact. I just think Bucks GM did a bad job in constructing that roster and Scott Skiles is just an ordinary coach who kind of narrow minded in some aspects of basketball. So far everyone happy what Curry doing and what he can do going towards the playoffs for this season and I'm excited of what going to happen going forward with Curry as one of the key players.

Excellent discussion, gents. I'll try to chime in briefly and forgive me if I repeat any points (as this thread has a lot of condensed information). Here's why I don't believe the small backcourt thing could work:

1, Defense. Not simply backing down a mismatch, as you stated GSW Hoops Fan. It's the entire process of guarding a bigger guy. They see over you, they pass around you, they can bully-dribble into you for quick fouls, they can shoot leaners and faders right out of your reach. You don't have to turn around and pull a Barkley to take advantage of size; a protected dribble and a shoulder into your defender is just as effective... And it happened against Ellis (who insisted of manning the 2) a LOT. It's not about keeping them away from the rim; it's about keeping them off their spots. With Klay Thompson and Jarrett Jack able to switch with Steph, the guards have been much less exposed this year. Ellis was a lane-jumper with a great nose for steals (I rarely saw him get burned going for a pick), but he seemed to only really ratchet his defense up against Kobe Bryant... or any player trying to post him up on a specific play. He was a fly in a web whenever guys would run him off screens, he was incapable of denying the ball, and nobody (no matter how much we loved him) could make the argument that the defense was better with Ellis on the floor. He allowed easy penetration that got our bigs in a lot of foul trouble. Without him, the team rotates well, calls out screens, collapses inside on the ball, and the overall product is much better and unquestionably looks more like a team effort.

2, the before-mentioned selfishness that 8th spoke of. Not just the trashing of Curry when he was drafted, not just the locker room beef with David Lee, not even the moped. Those are all off-court issues and to be fair some players can handle Vegas and still deliver. But Ellis stuck out his tongue and held his breath whenever anyone dared to ask him to play point guard. He didn't like it, he didn't try to succeed at it, he simply went through the motions and waited to be put off the ball again so he could ISO his way to 22 points on 19 shots. Ideally, in 2010, Monta is the point and Steph is the off... Like the way Jack handles the ball now. If Ellis would have used his skills as a penetrator to improve the team and the game of his teammates, he'd have been a lot more valuable to me. Never cared for his tunnel-vision, never enjoyed his hitting the ground without getting whistles and pouting and light jogging back on D, always hated to see him hide the ball and slowly pivot and wait for his teammates to clear out so he could do his own thing... Just always reminded me of a guy you'd hate to play with. Too damn Iverson for my taste.

3, the proof is in the pudding. With Ellis, this team was garbage. Without him and with a couple free agents and rookies, they're the 5 seed in the better conference. The Bucks are also a 5 seed, but their 13-11 record is a far cry from Golden State's 17-9, not to mention the Bucks are capable of losing big (which the Dubs haven't shown yet). Sandwiched between a couple 6-2 stretches, the Bucks lost 5 of 6 games to finish off November and are 1-2 in their current trip. With Ellis shooting 38.7% (including 20.0% for three) and coughing up 2.9 turnovers from the shooting guard spot, Milwaukee seems to be above water IN SPITE of Monta Ellis, not BECAUSE of him.